—For a lot of white nationalists/white supremicists, any opposing views are invalid, and any facts that don’t support their conclusions are “jewish lies” and not to be trusted.—
So what? If that’s what’s happening (and I avoid trying to label and dismiss them as such) then that’s still THEIR problem. My problem is giving honest answers to questions and trying to find the truth. That’s no different whether the person I’m talking to is a bigot or not.
Personally, I say let 'em stick around just for our amusment. It’s been a while since we had a pet. Eventually, they’ll be taken to the pound, or run away, or have to be put down. But can’t we play with them in the meantime?
Personally, I say let 'em stick around just for our amusment. It’s been a while since we had a pet. Eventually, they’ll be taken to the pound, or run away, or have to be put down. But can’t we play with them in the meantime?
Libertarian: I am also in principle opposed to a blanket ban of the white supremacists. But I don’t think that debating them at the SDMB will bring more value to the board, or that the benefits derived therefrom outweigh the disadvantages as listed in my post.
IzzyR: I am in favour of free speech, but that doesn’t mean that I would allow someone to put a poster on my house saying “Kill all the Jews” or “Ship the blacks back to Africa!” We do not have unlimited freedom of speech at the SDMB, as you may have noticed: no advertising, no links to pornography, amongst other restrictions. And the more exposure a white supremacist will give to advocating their views, the more adherents s/he will gain, especially when they try to support their views with “facts” such as “blacks are genetically predisposed to crime”, “Jews control US foreign policy”, etc.
Arnold wrote:
As I said, I’m on board with you. But just to stress where I’m coming from, I’m defering to you out of respect for you and for the fact that you represent the site owners.
And frankly, I don’t disagree that debating them here brings more value to the board. Unfortunately, the reason that’s true, as I see it, is because of the way we might tend to debate.
Pile-ons. Insults. Assertions that they don’t deserve to live — which merely mirror the assertions they make — look bad to objective viewers. I still believe that a civil debate would defeat them. I just don’t believe that that will happen here.
Even His4ever was called subhuman and worthless, and was taunted for her belief in a literal scripture interpretation about homosexuality (although Chaim and others have not been so dehumanized).
Tolerating a view and tolerating the expression of a view are not the same thing; the former may be naive, but the latter is enlightened.
Arnold:
Understood. But there is a fundamental difference, in that the regulations you cite regulate behaviour, as opposed to expression of ideas. It is not a contradiction to stand for the free exchange of ideas and still regulate behaviour. It is a contradiction to then regulate the expression of certain ideas.
But again, the SDMB does not have to stand for anything, and those who run it can do whatever they want.
Lib:
I’m beginning to think that serious use of that compound word should subject the user to automatic taunting. If somebody says something that offends a whole lot of people, there is nothing whatsoever inappropriate about all those people responding. I’ve seen damned few people in any of the WN threads drop by to say “Me too!” or “You suck!” Instead, dozens of perfectly articulate Dopers have dropped by to counter their lies and half-truths with solid facts and to point out the myriad flaws in their reasoning. That’s not a pile-on, Lib. That’s the marketplace of ideas, and around these parts, we’ve got more market power than Microsoft.
Insulting their bullshit excuse for facts and logic is acceptable. Taunting them for refusing to answer a straight question is acceptable. Calling a Nazi a Nazi is simply the truth.
Insulting them personally is unacceptable. And I haven’t seen anything like that.
Cite, please?
Of course we regulate the exchange of ideas. For example, you are not allowed to express the idea that you think you should shoot the president, or the idea that it would be a really great thing if you were to go to poster X’s house and beat the crap out of them.
So I guess expressing the idea of going to the White House and beating the president up is right out then, huh?
Chaim never called me an abomination for loving someone; His4Ever has. However, you’ll note that the worst thing I ever called H4E was stupid, and in her case that’s not an epithet, but a descriptive adjective.
well change names and the cause celebre and you’ve got a description of at least one or two folks who are already here, dontcha?
I love you, wring.
Well yes, if you talk about threats to specific people. As I understand it, the US constitution makes exceptions for such cases as well. But suppose an anarchist showed up to debate his general position that all governments should be overthrown and their heads of state excecuted. Would this be disallowed?
Gobear wrote:
Correction: His4Ever said that God (not His4Ever) called homosexuality (not homosexuals) an abomination.
But if you insist on holding to that, then would you not say that Chaim said you do some pretty awful things, and that what you do would have defiled Israel, and is equivalent to incest, bestiality, and human sacrifice?
And hasn’t he said that God’s destruction of those societies was not cruelty but justice?
I think you would have to bury your head in the sand to escape what he thinks the Bible says about homosexuality.
There are many similar references that are easy to find from Chaim and Zev, and likely from any Orthodox Jewish poster.
It just doesn’t seem right to paint His4Ever as some sort of subhuman Cretin for quoting scripture while excusing others who do it too.
I’m not pointing out Chaim and Zev as examples of people you should call stupid, but rather as examples of people whom you are calling stupid if you call His4Ever stupid for the same reason.
wring: You may have noticed that I said “we don’t need any more posters of that kind.”
IzzyR - I am not a Great Debates moderator, but if I were, I would judge the hate speech / incitations to violence in relation to the crowd of posters that frequent the message board. For example, a post advocating gay bashing would be much more likely to be closed by Arnold GD moderator since gay bashing is something that happens often in the USA, and thus be more disruptive and offensive to our posters. Not all hypotheticals will provoke the same response. Calling for a [nuclear] holocaust of Israel brings to mind the recent holocaust of Jews in Europe, and raises the spectre of the neo-nazi movement, a very real presence in the USA. (see http://www.tolerance.org ) So that kind of speech is more “dangerous” IMHO than other kinds of hate speech - e.g. someone claiming that “we need to eliminate all Swiss people living in the USA” is easier to dismiss as an isolated nutcase, since everybody loves the Swiss.
Libertarian: I disagree with you that the white supremacists at the SDMB are being unfairly treated. They are subject to the same rules in Great Debates as anyone else. The SDMB crowd is a rough crowd, but as one of my colleagues has said to me, “I prefer ‘smart and sarcastic’ to ‘nice and dump’”. Someone spreading a message of hate will not get a kind reception here, but the rules in Great Debates are being respected as far as I can tell.
I can’t speak for gobear, but I personally am more offended when I saw a Christian spreading a message of intolerance than an orthodox Jew. In the society in which I live (USA) Christians have much more influence on public policy and the legislature (compare the number of Christians in the US congress or in State congresses to the number of orthodox Jews). On the other hand, I met a gay activist from Israel once and he was quite vocal on the subject of of Orthodox Jews and homosexuality.
Arnoled, yes I did notice, but I couldn’t help myself… forgive me, please?
Arnold
I’m not saying she is being unfairly treated, although I think a case could be made for that. I’m saying that she’s being carelessly treated.
Whether it’s fair to taunt her is one thing, but whether it’s wise is quite another.
It’s not like we’ve gotten her off to herself and are dealing her the justice we believe she deserves. Rather, what we are doing is being broadcast back to the control room, and it is filled with curious onlookers.
We have been reduced to people throwing up their hands and saying, “why are we even talking to her?”. People armed with true premises and formidable debating skills do not say such things.
If you argue with person A and they keep on repeating the same thing over and over without addressing your points, then a careful reader will not be offended when people say “why bother arguing with her.”
The treatment that she gets is not present only in that thread. I see it in many threads in Great Debates. Anyone familiar with that forum will not read her thread and think “oh my, I’m shocked at people’s behaviour”!
wring - I would have forgiven you if you had spelled my name correctly. As it is, you have been currently been placed on … The List.
Well, I think by now we’ve pretty much proven it’s not going to go well when a WN tries to debate…it just doesn’t work, because they have nothing solid to back up their stance.